NC ORGANICS RECYCLING STUDY: MATERIALS MANAGED 2011 … Assistance and... · 2018-06-19 · NC...

NC ORGANICS RECYCLING STUDY:

MATERIALS MANAGED 2011-2015

& FOOD RECOVERED 2015

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service

Recycling and Materials Management Section

JUNE 2016

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Scott Mouw, Rob Taylor, and Trevor Lobaugh, NC DEQ Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service (DEACS) Recycling and Materials Management Section (RAMMS); Donna Wilson and Tony Gallagher, NCDEQ Division of Waste Management (DWM) Solid Waste Section; Jamie Kritzer, NCDEQ DWM/DEACS Public Information Officer; and Nathaniel Thornburg, NCDEQ Division of Water Resources (DWR) Water Quality Permitting Section Non-Discharge Permitting Unit (NDPU).

ABOUT NCDEQ DEACS RAMMS

The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service

(DEACS) offers assistance to local and state agencies, businesses, and residents throughout North Carolina for

a wide range of environmental issues. Through its technical services, DEACS helps its customers: navigate

regulatory and permitting challenges; become more environmentally efficient and make the most of available

resources; achieve and be recognized for environmental excellence; contribute to economic growth; and

understand how to address environmental problems.

NCDEQ’s DEACS Recycling and Materials Management Section assists private and public sectors through

technical support and grant funding. The Recycling Business Assistance Center provides assistance to start-up,

existing, or relocating recycling businesses, and works one-on-one with recycling companies to assess needs

and provide direct and indirect assistance. The Local Government Recycling Assistance Team supports NC

municipalities and counties in operating cost-efficient and effective recycling programs.

CONTACT

Please contact Jorge Montezuma with any questions about the study at [email protected] or

(919) 707-8123. For additional resources, please visit: deq.nc.gov/conservation/recycling/composting.

mailto:[email protected]

http://deq.nc.gov/conservation/recycling/composting

NC ORGANICS RECYCLING STUDY Page 1 of 29 JUNE 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 4

OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................................... 6

METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 6

RESULTS & DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................... 7

General ............................................................................................................................................... 7

Inputs / Feedstocks ...........................................................................................................................10

Outputs / Products ............................................................................................................................ 15

Food Recovery ................................................................................................................................. 20

KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................... 26

FUTURE RESEARCH AREAS ................................................................................................................ 27

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................... 28

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Number of NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities. .................................................... 7

Figure 2 – Fiscal 2014-15 Total Permitted Capacity: 1.8 Million Tons (by NCDEQ DWM permitted

composting facilities) ............................................................................................................................ 8

Figure 3 – Average tipping fees ($ per ton) as reported by NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities.

.............................................................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 4 – Total materials and yard waste received (in tons). ...............................................................10

Figure 5 – Non-yard waste high-carbon materials received (in tons) by NCDEQ DWM permitted

composting facilities. ........................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 6 – High-nitrogen materials received (in tons) by NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities.

............................................................................................................................................................. 11

Figure 7 – The “evolving ton”, a stacked comparative distribution of materials received by NCDEQ DWM

permitted composting facilities (by percentage relative to the year materials were received). ............12

Figure 8 – Permitted composting facilities that received the most material in fiscal 2014-2015. .......... 13

Figure 9 – Total products created & sold to the public (in tons) at NCDEQ DWM permitted composting

facilities. ............................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 10 – Other end uses of total products created (in tons) at NCDEQ DWM permitted composting

facilities (excludes products sold to public). ......................................................................................... 16

Figure 11 – Stacked comparative distribution of products created by end use at NCDEQ DWM permitted

composting facilities (by percentage relative to their year of production). .......................................... 16


Figure 12 – Stacked comparative distribution of Mulch created at NCDEQ DWM permitted composting

facilities (by percentage relative to their year of production). .............................................................. 17

Figure 13 – Stacked comparative distribution of Grade A Compost created at NCDEQ DWM permitted

composting facilities (by percentage relative to their year of production). ........................................... 17

Figure 14 – Products created at NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities (in tons). ....................18

Figure 15 – Stacked comparative distribution of types of products created at NCDEQ DWM permitted

composting facilities (by percentage relative to their year of production). .......................................... 19

Figure 16 – 2015 Food diverted from the landfill through food rescue/donations, anaerobic digestion,

animal feeding, and permitted commercial composting facilities (total 99,704 tons diverted). .......... 22

Figure 17 – Food scraps received (more than 100 tons) at NCDEQ permitted composting facilities. ...23

Figure 18 – Food scraps (less than 100 tons) received at NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities.

............................................................................................................................................................ 24

TABLES

Table 1 – Breakdown of reported tipping fees ($ per ton) by different composting facilities. ................ 9

Table 2 – County origins of organic waste processed (as reported by the NCDEQ DWM permitted

composting facilities in fiscal 2014-15). ................................................................................................14

Table 3 – Infrastructure to meet 50 percent food waste reduction goal (divert 1.1 million tons). ......... 25


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study highlights the materials managed at commercial composting facilities for the past five years

and analyzes the food recovery efforts through four strategies: food rescue, animal feeding operations,

commercial composting, and anaerobic digestion. North Carolina established a number of solid waste

statutes in the early 1990s that drove the development of the regulated commercial composting

industry. This early state government encouragement (including a yard waste landfill ban effective

January 1993) in combination with strong private sector investment has created a healthy commercial

composting industry with 87 composting operations statewide that service the needs of millions of

residents. This past year, 52 facilities (permitted by N.C. Department of Environmental Quality’s

Division of Waste Management) reported receiving more than 600,000 tons of organic material,

creating approximately 219,000 tons of Grade A compost and 194,000 tons of mulch, and selling to the

public approximately 58 percent of all material processed.

New federal encouragement for organic waste diversion is coming from the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reduce food waste by 50 percent by 2030.

Fortunately, North Carolina has a robust food recovery infrastructure, consisting of commercial

composting facilities with enough total permitted capacity to process the majority of the excess food

to meet the EPA/USDA’s goal, and a large, growing network of food rescue organizations, animal

feeding operations, anaerobic digestion facilities, and private sector corporate sustainability and zero

waste goals in place. The combination of all these pieces — support from state and local governments

and corporate commitments coupled with non-profit and private sector diversion services — is crucial

to diverting organic materials from the landfill, creating jobs, improving soil health, reducing hunger

and meeting the federal food waste reduction goal.


INTRODUCTION

This study analyzes the materials received and products created at permitted composting facilities from

2011 through 2015 as well as the impact of various food recovery activities in 2015.

North Carolina has been composting for decades with some communities composting food scraps

commercially since the 1990s. Materials received and composted at commercial composting facilities

have been reported to the state since the late 1990s. Overall, this study addresses the need for citizens,

as well as the public and private sectors, to understand the commercial composting infrastructure and

how it helps better manage organic material streams.

Support from the public and private sectors has been instrumental in increasing the existing

infrastructure. Other contributing factors influencing the development of the infrastructure are these

four NC General Statutes:

§ 130A-309.04. State solid waste management policy and goals.

(a) It is the policy of the State to promote methods of solid waste management that are alternatives to disposal

in landfills and to assist units of local government with solid waste management. In furtherance of this State

policy, there is established a hierarchy of methods of managing solid waste, in descending order of preference:

(1) Waste reduction at the source;

(2) Recycling and reuse;

(3) Composting;

§ 130A-309.09B. Local government waste reduction programs.

(a) Each unit of local government shall establish and maintain a solid waste reduction program. The following

requirements shall apply:

(3) Units of local government are encouraged to separate marketable plastics, glass, metal, and all grades of

paper for recycling prior to final disposal and are further encouraged to recycle yard trash and other organic

solid waste into compost available for agricultural and other acceptable uses.

§ 130A-309.10. Prohibited acts relating to packaging; coded labeling of plastic containers required; disposal

of certain solid wastes in landfills or by incineration prohibited.

(b) No person shall knowingly dispose of the following solid wastes in landfills:

(3) Yard trash, except in landfills approved for the disposal of yard trash under rules adopted by the Commission.

Yard trash that is source separated from solid waste may be accepted at a solid waste disposal area where

the area provides and maintains separate yard trash composting facilities.

§ 130A-309.11. Compost standards and applications.

(a) In order to protect the State's land and water resources, compost produced, utilized, or disposed of by the

composting process at solid waste management facilities in the State must meet criteria established by the

Department.


General Statutes 130A-309.04 and 130A-309-09B both affirm the state’s support for alternative

disposal methods for solid waste and the encouragement of local governments to compost. General

Statute 130A-309.10 banned yard waste from municipal solid waste landfills (yard waste is still allowed

to be disposed of in land clearing and inert debris (LCID) landfills, although many of the LCID landfills

recycle the yard waste and sell it as mulch or compost). Lastly, General Statute 130A-309.11 provides

the guidance necessary for the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Waste

Management to develop the composting rules (15 NCAC 13B .1400 Rules), which were issued in 1996.

This created a path to regulate the production of soil amendment products manufactured from

byproducts (organic solid waste material) of other processes, such as agricultural and manufacturing

operations, city yard waste collection programs, leftover food, manures from animal operations, grease

trap from restaurants and other organic materials.

Besides the initial North Carolina legislative support to divert organic material from the landfills, the

most recent international and national governmental support comes from a United Nations agreement

released in September 2015 and a similar joint agreement released in October 2015 by the EPA and the

USDA establishing a food waste reduction goal of 50 percent by 2030. By improving the effectiveness

of managing food by reducing losses, rescuing it or diverting it, hunger and greenhouse gas emissions

can be decreased dramatically. According to Feeding America, 48 million people in the U.S. (or 15

percent of the population) lived in food insecure households in 2014.1 Additionally, according to the

Natural Resources Defense Council, 40 percent of food produced goes uneaten and just a 15 percent

reduction in food losses would be enough to feed 25 million Americans every year.2 Lastly, according to

the EPA, 20 percent of U.S. methane emissions (the most prevalent greenhouse gas with the highest

global warming potential) came from organic waste decomposing in landfills in 2014.3 Organic waste

reduction and diversion as well as effectively managing excess food have multiple economical, societal,

and environmental benefits.

Throughout the state, there is an increasing interest in composting organic waste, specifically food

scraps. The state Division of Waste Management issues composting demonstration approvals that

allow small operations to test composting methodologies before they seek a full permit, making it

easier for new companies to assess business models and composting operations. Established public

and private commercial composting operations are often seeking ways to improve their composting

processes or the marketability of their compost products. Businesses that generate excess food are

requesting information on food scrap collection as well as on-site composting systems to meet

corporate sustainability and zero–waste-to-landfill goals. Schools and higher education institutions are

increasingly interested in diverting material from the landfill through off-site facilities or doing it

themselves to meet their sustainability initiatives, typically with some level of help from students. And

several corporate grocery stores have established programs throughout their locations to donate food

1 Feeding America – Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics. 2 Natural Resources Defense Council – Wasted: How America is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill (published

August 2012). 3 US Environmental Protection Agency – Methane Emissions.

http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/hunger-and-poverty/hunger-and-poverty-fact-sheet.html

https://www.nrdc.org/issues/food-waste

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html


or divert it from landfilling. Some of these grocery stores include Walmart, Food Lion, Harris Teeter,

Publix, Whole Foods, Weaver Street Market and Kroger.

The demand for composting services has increased in the past few years, and as citizens and consumers

request lower carbon footprints and improved environmental practices, the demand for organics

recycling services will only continue to grow. Fortunately, North Carolina is poised to increase the

processing of organic material, add value to different types of “waste,” and increase collection of

wholesome food.

OBJECTIVES

The following study was developed to understand the following:

the flow of incoming feedstocks through composting facilities;

the flow of products created at composting facilities;

the ability of the current commercial composting infrastructure to handle increasing amounts of

organic material, especially food scraps;

the impact of the existing strategies to divert excess food from the landfill; and

the need for additional data and research.

METHODOLOGY

Data was compiled from the annual composting facility reports collected by the state Division of Waste

Management (DWM) Solid Waste Section and the state Division of Water Resources (DWR). It is

important to note the information presented in the GENERAL, INPUTS/FEEDSTOCKS, and

OUTPUTS/PRODUCTS sections of this study is derived from the 52 permitted composting facilities

under the N. C. Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Waste Management, and,

unless otherwise noted, it does not include materials managed by composting operations under landfill

permits or materials managed by facilities permitted under state Division of Water Resources. The

FOOD RECOVERY section consists of DWM and DWR data, as well as data obtained from e-mail and

phone interviews with several non-profit organizations and private businesses. Microsoft Access and

Excel software were used to analyze the data and generate the figures. Due to the limited sampling and

diverse types of data, averages are mostly used, as advanced statistical analysis would not provide

dependable information. As the dataset grows, additional statistical analysis should be explored.


RESULTS & DISCUSSION

The following section consists of four major components:

GENERAL: information about composting facilities, capacity and tipping fees;

INPUTS / FEEDSTOCKS: analysis of the incoming materials received at composting facilities;

OUTPUTS / PRODUCTS: analysis of the products created at the composting facilities; and

FOOD RECOVERY: analysis of four strategies utilized to rescue wholesome food to feed people and

animals, and with the rest generate soil amendment and electricity.

A discussion of the findings is followed after each figure or table to describe trends and supply additional

information that may come from other sections.

General

This section provides information related to the permitted composting facilities, permitted capacity

and tipping fees. Overall, the industry has diverse operations ranging from public and private facilities

managing multiple, steady tipping fees, and available permitted capacity to increase processing of

organic materials. The next three figures and table will show this.

Figure 1 – Number of NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities.

Figure 1 shows a steady trend in the number composting facilities permitted under the state Division

of Waste Management (DWM) Solid Waste Section. This number excludes the composting

demonstration approvals that DWM issues. The total number of facilities that reported composting

tonnages in fiscal 2014-15 is 52, consisting of 24 private operations, 23 publicly-operated sites, and five

higher education institution operations. It is important to note this figure does not take into account

other facilities that manage yard waste regulated by the state Division of Waste Management (such as

eight demonstration composting facilities, 258 yard waste notification sites, and 16 land clearing and

inert debris landfills) nor facilities regulated by the Division of Water Resources (such as ten wastewater

treatment plants composting biosolids generated on site, one anaerobic digester, and one commercial

composting facility).

44

52

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15


Figure 2 – Fiscal 2014-15 Total Permitted Capacity: 1.8 Million Tons (by NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities)

Figure 2 shows that North Carolina is using 35 percent of its available permitted capacity to process

organic material (by NCDEQ DWM composting facilities) and has an available permitted capacity to

process an additional 1.2 million tons of organic material. It is important to note this is an approximation

based on the available data from the NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities. Whereas the

permit did not list the permitted tonnage, reported tonnage from the previous year was used, and

whereas the permit listed the permitted capacity in cubic yards, the bulk density factor used was 0.5

tons to cubic yards, based on average bulk densities for yard waste. This approximation is conservative

because it does not assume higher values than those found through available documentation.

Figure 3 (next page) shows the average tipping fees at some composting facilities. Composting tipping

fees are necessary to cover capital, operational, and maintenance costs. Many of the operations use

heavy machinery such as tractors, loaders, mixers, turners, screeners, bagging equipment, spreaders

and trucks. They also use vehicles to transport incoming feedstock and outgoing finished products.

Other costs include employee salaries, personal protective equipment, scales, restroom facilities, truck

scales, electricity, water, permits and engineering design. In general, the revenue from the final

products (compost or mulch) is not able to cover all of the expenses incurred, either because not enough

is sold, markets demand lower prices, or because the finished products were simply given away as a city

or county service to its citizens. For these reasons and others, composting facilities rely on tipping fees

to cover the majority of their expenses.

Capacity Used, 640,276 tons,

35%Available Permitted Capacity,

1,189,889 tons, 65%


Figure 3 – Average tipping fees ($ per ton) as reported by NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities.

Figure 3 shows a steady average tipping fee of $26.40 per ton for the past 5 years. Most recently, in

fiscal 2014-15, 21 commercial composting facilities reported average tipping fees, with an overall

average of $25.90 per ton. Table 1 shows a breakdown of fiscal 2014-15 tipping fees by nine privately

and 11 publicly operated facilities. Table 1 excludes one reported value, $49 per ton, as it was the single

higher education entity that reported a tipping fee; considered an outlier for the purpose of this study.

The averages are fairly similar among both types of public and private facilities. It is important to note

that different facilities will charge varying tipping fees per client depending on the frequency, amount,

and type of material that is received. Figure 3 provides an overall average and does not reflect the

variety of tipping fees throughout the state. Composting facilities accept a variety of feedstocks and

operate on the basis of “compost recipes,” similar to baking or cooking, therefore the tipping fee will

change if the composting facility is in great need of a certain feedstock or the supply is short.

Table 1 – Breakdown of reported tipping fees ($ per ton) by different composting facilities.

Tipping Fee Private (9) Public (11)

High $ 30 $ 40

Average $ 24.33 $ 25.09

Low $ 10 $ 15

Lastly, given the limited amount of data currently available, some facilities provided information on

jobs generated. Six private permitted composting facilities employed a total of 145 people, handling

approximately 390,000 tons of materials in fiscal 2014-15. Based on this, 3.7 jobs were generated per

10,000 tons of material composted. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance in 2013 found that Maryland

composting facilities can generate 4.1 jobs per 10,000 tons of material composted per year while

landfilling in Maryland generated 2.2 jobs per 10,00o tons of material landfilled per year.4 North

Carolina’s small data sample is relatively close to Maryland’s findings. However, additional job

information is required to provide a more accurate value.

4 Institute for Local Self-Reliance – Pay Dirt: Composting in Maryland to Reduce Waste, Create Jobs & Protect the Bay (published May 2013).

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

https://ilsr.org/paydirt/


Inputs / Feedstocks

This section provides an analysis of the incoming materials received at the composting facilities in the

past five years. The next five figures show a steady amount of materials received, the breakdown of the

types of feedstocks, the evolution of materials processed through facilities spread out throughout the

state, and the composting facilities that processed the largest amounts of material.

Figure 4 – Total materials and yard waste received (in tons).

The solid lines on Figure 4 show a fairly similar trend year to year between the total amount of materials

managed and the amount of yard waste managed by composting facilities permitted by NCDEQ DWM.

Since 2010, there has been an overall 12 percent increase of total material received, or 2 percent per

year. There has also been an overall decrease of 23 percent of yard waste received since 2011, or a 5

percent decrease per year. On average, yard waste has constituted 54 percent of the total materials

received and made up 51 percent of composted materials during the last fiscal year. The dashed line

shows the total tonnage including materials managed by McGill Delway’s composting facility which is

permitted by the state Division of Water Resources. It is important to emphasize that there are other

facilities that manage organic materials (mainly grinding yard waste materials, such as Yard Waste

Notification Sites, and Land Clearing and Inert Debris (LCID), Construction and Demolition (C&D) and

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfills) that may report their tonnages through non-DWM reporting

forms and were not included as part of this report. Future research areas include compiling the

additional reports to create a more accurate picture of the composting activities in NC.

Figure 5 (next page) shows relatively steady levels of pallets and sawdust received at composting

facilities and a significant increase of clean wood processed (128 percent increase since 2011, or 26

percent per year). The increase in processed clean wood comes from three private composting facilities:

Earth Farms Organics, Wallace Farms, and Hensons. The dashed lines show the 5-year trend of each

one of the materials in Figures 5 and 6 (next page).

Yard Waste

Total

Total + McGill Delway

-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15


Figure 5 – Non-yard waste high-carbon materials received (in tons) by NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities.

Figure 6 – High-nitrogen materials received (in tons) by NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities.

Clean Wood

Sawdust

Pallets

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Food Scraps

Animal Waste

Sludge/Biosolids

Grease

Agricultural Waste

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15


Figure 6 (previous page) shows the trends for the other materials processed at composting facilities

that would be considered high in nitrogen content, such as sludge or biosolids, animal waste, food

scraps, grease trap waste and agricultural waste. It shows upwards trends for sludge/biosolids (57

percent increase since 2010, or 11 percent per year), grease (43 percent increase since 2010, or 9 percent

per year), and agricultural waste (23 percent increase since 2010, or 4.6 percent per year). It shows

downwards trends for animal waste (12 percent decrease since 2010, or 2.4 percent per year) and food

scraps. However, it is important to note that even though food scraps are showing a negative trend

during the past five years, the past three reporting years have been slowly increasing (26 percent

increase since fiscal 2012-13, or 8.7 percent per year).

Figure 7 shows the evolution of each reported material received at all of the NCDEQ DWM composting

facilities for the past five years. Yard waste makes up the majority of the materials received. Pallets and

sawdust show to stay relatively the same throughout the past five years. On the other hand, clean wood

increases as it reaches fiscal 2014-15 (5 percent increase per year since 2012). High-carbon materials

(such as yard waste, clean wood, sawdust, and pallets) consist of 65.5 percent of the received materials,

while high-nitrogen materials (food scraps, animal waste, sludge/biosolids, agricultural waste, and

mortalities) consist of 31.5 percent, and the rest (inerts, soils, and others) consist of 3 percent in average.

Figure 7 – The “evolving ton”, a stacked comparative distribution of materials received by NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities (by percentage relative to the year materials were received).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Others

Inerts/Soils

Sheetrock

Mortalities

Agricultural Waste

Grease

Sludge/Biosolids

Animal Waste

Food Scraps

Pallets

Sawdust

Clean Wood

Yard Waste


Figure 8 – Permitted composting facilities that received the most material in fiscal 2014-2015.

Figure 8 shows 11 facilities that received the most material in fiscal 2014-15. The amount of material

they received is 77 percent of the total material received by all facilities (778,412 tons including McGill –

Delway). Of these 11 facilities, four of them are publicly operated Type 1 composting facilities

(permitted to process mainly high-carbon/woody material): Compost Central in Mecklenburg County,

City of Raleigh Yard Waste in Wake County, City of Greensboro in Guilford County, and City of New

Bern Yard Waste Facility in Craven County. And seven are privately operated Type 3 and 4 composting

facilities (multi-feedstock): McGill-New Hill and Brooks Compost in Chatham County, McGill-Delway in

Sampson County, Earth Farms Organics in Gaston County, Wallace Farms in Mecklenburg County, Rose

Acre Farm in Hyde County, and Eastern Compost in Edgecombe County.

McGill - Delway, 122,424 tons, 20%

McGill - New Hill, 82,131 tons, 14%

Earth Farms Organics, 79,716 tons, 13%

Brooks Compost Facility, 57,231 tons, 10%

Compost Central, 56,404 tons, 9%

Wallace Farm, 48,010 tons, 8%

City of Raleigh Yard Waste Center,

40,930 tons, 7%

Rose Acre Farm, 36,085 tons, 6%

City of Greensboro, 29,657 tons, 5%

Eastern Compost, 26,311 tons, 4%

City of New Bern Yard Waste Facility, 21,733 tons, 4%

Percentages based on tons acceptedby these 11 facilities: 600,630 tons(77% of material from all facilities)


Table 2 – County origins of organic waste processed (as reported by the NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities in fiscal 2014-15).

County Material % County Material %

Wake 22% Avery, Brunswick, Buncombe, Carteret, Catawba, Chatham, Cumberland, Davidson, Edgecombe, Franklin, Lincoln, Moore, Nash, and Orange

1 % each

Mecklenburg 15%

Guilford 8%

Forsyth 7%

Hyde 6% Alamance, Anson, Ashe, Bertie, Columbus, Granville, Halifax, Haywood, Hoke, Iredell, Johnston, Jones, Macon, Martin, Mitchell, Montgomery, Onslow, Pamlico, Pitt, Randolph, Richmond, Robeson, Rockingham, Rowan, Rutherford, Sampson, Scotland, Stanly, Union, Vance, and Wayne

less than 1% each Durham and Craven 5% each

Watauga 4%

Cabarrus and Gaston 3% each

Harnett 3%

Lee and Wilson 2%

Table 2 shows the counties from where the most material originated from in fiscal 2014-15 as reported

by the composting facilities. Out of these, the counties that contributed the most are Wake,

Mecklenburg, Guilford, Forsyth, Hyde, Durham, and Craven. The first three align with the locations of

where the largest public operations are located and other nearby private operations. As well as Hyde

County, an extremely rural county, which ranks high because its single source of generation and

processing of organic material is the composting facility at Rose Acre Farms.

It is important to note that this only accounts for the materials received at NCDEQ DWM permitted

composting facilities, it does not include the organic material managed by the 258 NCDEQ DWM Yard

Waste Notification sites, nor DWR-permitted McGill-Delway facility, nor the others mentioned earlier,

which could include small mulching or processing operations. If these values were taken into account,

it would provide a more accurate perspective on the amount of total organic material contributed by

each.


Outputs / Products

This section contains seven figures showing the trends over five years of products manufactured at

composting facilities. These products are Mulch, Grade A Compost, Grade B Compost, engineered soils,

client-specific soil mixtures and others. The differences between Grade A Compost and Grade B

Compost are described on the Solid Waste Compost Rule .1407. There are three requirements to

manufacture Grade A Compost: (1) contain less than six percent manmade inerts per sample (inerts

must be less than 1 inch in size), (2) undergo a temperature-controlled composting method to meet

“PFRP” (Process to Further Reduce Pathogens), and (3) meet the metal concentrations as established

by the rules. Grade B Compost can have more than six percent manmade inerts per sample, does not

need to meet PFRP, but must meet the metal concentrations. Mulch on the other hand is made from

grinding yard waste, creating piles, turning it a few times, and creating a product that is not as carefully

managed as Grade A Compost is. Compost is much richer in plant available nutrients than mulch,

mainly because Compost has been decomposed much farther, however mulch is typically used to

protect soil or compost. They are both great products and have different functions.

Figure 9 – Total products created & sold to the public (in tons) at NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities.

Figure 9 shows a steady production of products created followed by a similar trend of products sold to

the public. Since 2011, composters have been generating over 500,000 tons of material and selling on

average 300,000 tons of material every year (roughly 60 percent of total material created). Figure 10

shows the other destinations of the total amount of products created, such as using it on site (mainly

for erosion control or landscaping), giving it for free to the public, stockpiling for future use or allowing

it to cure, disposing of the material due to contamination, or finding other uses. In general the trends

for all, except for stockpiling, are steady for the past four fiscal years. Figure 10 (next page) shows

Stockpiling decreased by 35,461 tons (down 30 percent) and Figure 9 shows an increase in products sold

to public of 19,804 tons (up 0.1 percent) from fiscal 2013-14 to fiscal 2014-15.

522,849 544,134

293,341 313,145

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Created

Sold to Public


Figure 10 – Other end uses of total products created (in tons) at NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities (excludes products sold to public).

Figure 11 – Stacked comparative distribution of products created by end use at NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities (by percentage relative to their year of production).

Figure 11 shows a breakdown of the end uses of the materials created throughout the composting

facilities. It shows steady trends for finished products Used on Site (2 percent average), Given to the

Public (8 percent average), and Sold to the Public (59 percent). It is also shown that the material

Disposed was not significant until this past fiscal year (2 percent), and the “Other Use” category

continues to fluctuate. Due to the state NCDEQ DWM annual reporting form, the “Other” category may

be confusing to composting facility operators depending on what is considered “Other Use” (such as

material sold as boiler fuel, used as landfill alternative daily cover, or other uses).

17,017

45,841 43,797

115,028

79,567

12,343

32,491

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Used on Site

Given to Public

Stockpiled

Disposed

Other Use

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Other Use

Disposed

Stockpiled

Given to Public

Sold to Public

Used on Site


Figure 12 – Stacked comparative distribution of Mulch created at NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities (by percentage relative to their year of production).

Figure 13 – Stacked comparative distribution of Grade A Compost created at NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities (by percentage relative to their year of production).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Other Use

Disposed

Stockpiled

Given to Public

Sold to Public

Used on Site

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Other Use

Disposed

Stockpiled

Given to Public

Sold to Public

Used on Site


Figures 12 and 13 (previous page) show the relative distributions of Mulch and Grade A Compost,

respectively, in regards to their end uses. Both figures show that Mulch and Grade A compost are

mostly sold to the public with a small amount given to the public. The stockpiling of Mulch has been

increasing for the past five years, while stockpiling of Grade A Compost stockpiling has been decreasing

for the past three years. The decrease of stockpiling of Grade A Compost stockpiling decrease is

followed closely by the increase in material sold to the public, a healthy indicator for the industry. Both

figures show that Mulch is most likely to be used on site than Grade A Compost (a product with a higher

market value).

Figure 14 – Products created at NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities (in tons).

Figure 14 shows the tonnage distribution of the different products created at the state Division of

Waste Management’s permitted composting facilities. Mulch and Grade A Compost make up the

majority of the materials manufactured. A healthy infrastructure would be evidenced by a larger

amount of Grade A Compost generated compared to Mulch, mainly because Grade A Compost has a

higher value in the marketplace than Mulch, and Grade A Compost also has the ability to enter more

markets compared to Grade B Compost. Facilities manufacturing mulch should consider converting

Mulch into Grade A Compost to increase their revenue as long as they have a market developing.

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Other

Landfill Cover

"Soil Mix"

Woodchips/Boiler Fuel

Grade B Compost

Grade A Compost

Mulch


Figure 15 – Stacked comparative distribution of types of products created at NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities (by percentage relative to their year of production).

Figure 15 shows a percentage comparison contrasting each year which allows us to understand the

relative production of the different finished products created from year to year. Some obvious trends

are the increase of Mulch and a general decrease of Grade A Compost from fiscal 2013-14 to 2014-15. It

is also shown that the relative combined generation of Woodchips/Boiler Fuel and “Landfill Cover”

products have remained somewhat constant with a slight increase in the past year. Lastly, Grade B

Compost, shown by the thick dark line, is generally a small percentage of what is generated at

composting facilities, perhaps because the use of this product is “restricted to distribution for land and

mine reclamation, viticulture, and agriculture (on non-food chain crops) projects” as per NCDEQ Section

.1400 rules.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Other

Landfill Cover

"Soil Mix"

Woodchips/Boiler Fuel

Grade B Compost

Grade A Compost

Mulch


Food Recovery

The FOOD RECOVERY section focuses on food rescue, anaerobic digestion, animal feeding, and

commercial composting. For purposes of this study, food is defined as excess food from different

generators (edible and inedible), such as grocery stores, catering companies, restaurants, and food

manufacturing facilities. Figure 16 shows the breakdown of the excess food that was diverted from

landfilling, through food rescue organizations, animal feeding, and anaerobic digesters in 2015, and

NCDEQ composting facilities in fiscal 2014-2015. The additional two figures (Figures 17 and 18) focus

on the 5-year trend of food scraps being composted at the state Division of Waste Management’s

permitted composting facilities and one facility permitted under Division of Water Resources. These

composting facilities are operated by private companies and higher education institutions and the

figures are broken down by those that received more than 100 tons of food scraps per year and those

that received less than 100 tons per year. None of North Carolina’s local governments (counties, cities,

nor towns) operating composting facilities accept food scraps at this moment.

Food Rescue in the Community There are five food rescue non-profit organizations that serve all 100 counties in North Carolina, and

consist of the following:

MANNA Food Bank of Western NC;

Second Harvest Food Bank (Northwest NC, Metrolina, and Southeast NC);

Inter-Faith Food Shuttle;

Food Bank of Central & Eastern NC; and

Food Bank of the Albemarle.

Food Rescue at College Campuses In addition to these efforts, the Food Recovery Network (FRN) unites students on college campuses to

fight food waste and hunger by recovering perishable food that would otherwise go to waste from their

campuses and donating it to people in need. To date, North Carolina chapters have diverted 58,935

pounds (29 tons). North Carolina has nine active FRN chapters:

Belmont Abbey College;

Duke University;

High Point University;

North Carolina State University;

Pfeiffer University;

Salem College;

UNC – Chapel Hill;

UNC – Greensboro; and

UNC – Pembroke.

NORTH CAROLINA ORGANICS RECYCLING STUDY Page 21 of 29

Composting at Educational Institutions There are two school districts actively diverting food scraps through composting,

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (piloting a program at a couple of schools) and Chapel

Hill-Carrboro City Schools (as of March 2016 they had ran a cost neutral program, diverted 128

tons, and reduced their garbage bags by 90%—from 155 to 18). Additionally, there are 14 public

and seven private higher educational institutions actively collecting food scraps at sports

venues, dining facilities (pre- and/or post-consumer) and at special events. They are either

composting on-site or partnering with private composters to process their organic materials5:

Public Higher Educational Institutions

1. Alamance Community College;

2. Appalachian State University;

3. Central Piedmont Community College;

4. Guilford Technical Community College;

5. NC State University;

6. UNC Asheville;

7. UNC Chapel Hill;

8. UNC Charlotte;

9. UNC Greensboro;

10. UNC Pembroke;

11. UNC School of Arts;

12. Wake Technical Community College;

13. Wilson Community College; and

14. Winston-Salem State University.

Private Higher Educational Institutions

1. Davidson College;

2. Duke University;

3. Elon University;

4. Guilford College;

5. Meredith College;

6. Penland School of Crafts; and

7. Warren Wilson University.

Commercial Composting by Local Governments In the public composting sector, Orange County, in partnership with Brooks Compost, has

continued its subsidized commercial food scraps collection program and provided a drop off

location at one of its residential solid waste convenience centers. Wake County started a pilot

program in 2015 to collect residential food scraps at two convenience centers in partnership with

SMART Recycling. Wake County’s preliminary 6-month results include 2,000 pounds (1 ton) of

food waste being collected each month at the two sites and over 7 tons diverted since August.

Having spent a total of $2,790 on the 6-month pilot program, Wake County is going to continue

to a full year prior to evaluating and improving their program. There are no publicly operated

residential curbside food scraps collection programs operating in North Carolina.

5 North Carolina Public Community College & University Annual Recycling Report, NCDEQ DEACS 2016


Food Scraps Collection by Private Collection Companies In the private sector, there are two food scraps collection companies focusing on both residential

and commercial areas: CompostNow (Triangle and Asheville) and Tilthy Rich (downtown

Durham). Focusing exclusively on commercial food scraps, there are four hauling companies:

SMART Recycling (statewide), Food FWD (Triangle), Organix Recycling (statewide), and Valley

Proteins (statewide). In addition to these haulers, five composting facilities offer food scraps

collection services: Brooks Compost (Chatham County), McGill Compost (Chatham and

Sampson counties), Earth Farms Organics (Gaston County), Danny’s Dumpster (Buncombe

County), and Gallins Family Farms (Davie County). It is important to note that Gallins Family

Farm was operating under an approved demonstration site until this year (2016), and Danny’s

Dumpster is moving from a demonstration site to a full permit. Sites approved for composting

demonstration are not required to report annually; because of this, their yearly composting

tonnages are not taken into account in the initial part of the study (Inputs/Feedstocks Section);

however, with the exception of the food scraps composted at these two demonstration sites this

past year (2015) is taken into account on Figure 16. Lastly, at least two waste management

companies partner with composting facilities to haul food scraps: Republic Services and Waste

Management. This is driven by businesses requesting food scraps collection services.

Figure 16 – 2015 Food diverted from the landfill through food rescue/donations, anaerobic digestion, animal feeding, and permitted commercial composting facilities (total 99,704 tons diverted).

Note: This aggregated data was compiled from reports, surveys, phone conversations, and limited

information from various statewide organizations, businesses, and state governmental offices.

Figure 16 shows the breakdown of the general destinations of the 99,704 tons of food scraps

that were diverted from the landfill in 2015. This breakdown is roughly 15% food rescue, 20%

animal feeding, 20% anaerobic digestion, and 45% composting (15-20-20-45). In 2012, the state

Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service (DEACS) published a food waste

Food Rescue, 15,202 tons,

15%

Anaerobic Digestion,

18,242 tons, 18%

Animal Feeding, 19,647 tons,

20%

Composting, 46,613 tons,

47%


study6 estimating 1.2 million tons of food are wasted from residential and commercial areas

each year. That number does not include food losses at agricultural fields (point of production).

At this point, there are no estimates of agricultural food losses for North Carolina. The food

recovered by the food rescue organizations consists of perishable foods (produce from farmers

markets and grocery stores, excess food from catered events, restaurants, and grocery deli

shops). Based on the limited information available, it can be assumed that North Carolina

generated 1.2 million tons of food waste per year (not taking into account agricultural losses),

and last year North Carolina diverted 99,704 tons, meaning that North Carolina was able to

divert 8.3 percent of excess food destined to the landfill through these four strategies. This

leaves 1.1 million tons of food destined for the landfill. The following Figures 17 and 18 explore

where food scraps are being composted, and Table 3 describes briefly the infrastructure

required to expand each effort to reach the EPA/USDA goal to reduce food waste by 50 percent

by 2030.

Figure 17 – Food scraps received (more than 100 tons) at NCDEQ permitted composting facilities.

Figure 17 shows 12 NCDEQ composting facilities the reported receiving more than 100 tons of

food scraps per year. These facilities compost 99% of the total food scraps received at the

NCDEQ permitted composting facilities, compared to 1% composted by the small facilities

(less than 100 tons per year) presented on Figure 18. The facilities on Figure 17 are from both

DWM and DWR (McGill-Delway was the only DWR permitted composting facility that received

6 NC DEACS – North Carolina 2012 Food Waste Generation Study

Brooks Compost

Facility

Craven AG ServicesDavid Brantley &

Sons

Earth FarmsOrganics

Eastern Compost

McGill -New Hill

UNC Asheville

Wallace Farm

Brown Creek Correctional

Crowell Dairy Farms

NovozymesNovozymes

McGill - Delway

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

26,000

28,000

2014-152013-142012-132011-122010-11

https://deq.nc.gov/conservation/recycling/composting/composting-resources


food scraps). In fiscal 2014-15, Earth Farms Organics received the most food scraps, followed by

Brooks Compost, McGill-Delway, Wallace Farm, Eastern Compost, Craven AG, and McGill – New

Hill. It is important to note that in 2015, the Novozymes composting facility ended its

operations. Any missing data points indicate to the potential that the composting facility did

not submit a report. From 2013 on, Earth Farms Organics shows a significant increase in food

scraps, Brooks Compost shows a moderate increase, and both Wallace Farm and Eastern

Compost show a significant decrease in food scraps composted. McGill-Delway shows a

relatively steady collection of food scraps. As shown on Figure 6, there has been a slight increase

in food scraps received overall. Earth Farms Organics and Brooks Compost appear to be the

major contributors to this increase.

Figure 18 – Food scraps (less than 100 tons) received at NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities.

Figure 18 shows 12 NCDEQ composting facilities that reported receiving less than 100 tons of

food scraps per year. These facilities compost 1% of the total food scraps received at the NCDEQ

permitted composting facilities. The eight higher education composting facilities are included

in this data, and even though they process small quantities, the influence that college

composting programs have on future generations and leaders is unquantifiable. Through the

students, these programs have the potential to create future demand for food scraps collection

and composting services in the areas where the students decide to settle after graduation.

Appalachian State University

Appalachian State University

Caledonia Correctional

Institution

Davidson College

Foster-Caviness

Guilford College

Haywood Community College

(blue dot)

Orbit Energy

Penland School of Crafts

Tarheel Bark, a

Division of Garick

The Asheville School(blue line)

UNC Charlotte…

Warren Wilson College

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2014-152013-142012-132011-122010-11


In order for North Carolina to achieve the federal government’s goal to decrease food waste by

50 percent by 2030, the state must take into account the infrastructure required to manage

approximately 550,000 tons of excess food (this is 50% of 1.1 million food scraps destined for

landfilling). Based on the rough 15-20-20-45 breakdown (food rescue-animal feeding-anaerobic

digestion-composting breakdown as shown by Figure 16), each one of the entities recovering

and repurposing food would have to increase their operations by 5.5 times to manage half the

food currently destined to landfills in North Carolina and reach the goal set by the EPA and the

USDA. Table 3 shows a rough outline of the infrastructure required to expand each strategy.

Table 3 – Infrastructure to meet 50 percent food waste reduction goal (divert 1.1 million tons).

FOOD RESCUE: 82,500 tons (15%) Expansion of refrigerated vehicles, refrigerated storage, and pickup locations.

ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS: 110,000 tons (20%) Expansion of vehicles and pickup locations.

ANAEROBIC DIGESTION: 110,000 tons (20%) A permitted food scraps-based anaerobic digester (Blue Sphere in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County) is currently under construction with enough design capacity (500 tons per day of food scraps) to meet the Anaerobic Digestion share of the 50% reduction goal. Also, the only anaerobic digester that is processing food scraps at this moment (Full Circle Recycling in Zebulon, Johnston County) has available capacity. Unlike composting facilities that are spread throughout the state, these two anaerobic digesters are located next to two large urban metropolitan areas and will need well-developed collection routes and clusters of food scraps generators to make it economically feasible to reach the adjacent areas.

COMMERCIAL COMPOSTING: 247,500 tons (45%) Figure 2 shows there are approximately 1.2 million tons of permitted composting capacity currently available at commercial composting facilities. This should be enough to accommodate 246,500 tons of food scraps in addition to the necessary high-carbon material to effectively compost the food scraps. Even though the available permitted capacity to process organic materials exists, it would help to have the major publicly operated commercial composting facilities integrate food scraps into their operations and permits. Additionally, collection clusters of food scraps generators will be needed to make it economically feasible to reach areas that fall outside of the normal 25-40 mile radius range to collect food scraps. Lastly, medium sized food scraps composting operations will be necessary in areas that are farther than 50 miles away from existing composting facilities. This further decentralization would make it economically feasible for composting to be cost-competitive with landfilling at these farther places, and it would also decrease the carbon footprint of hauling food scraps.

These goals are based on the assumption that the existing infrastructure recovering food will

continue with the 15-20-20-45 breakdown. Additionally, this goal would be met faster if food

waste reduction strategies were implemented, such as improvements in food purchasing and

procurement methods, storage techniques, customer habits and more. For additional

information on food waste reduction strategies and additional details on the economics of other

food recovery strategies, please refer to the ReFED report (Rethinking Food Waste through

Economics and Data: A Roadmap to Reduce Food Waste, published March 2016).


KEY FINDINGS

General

1. The overall number of permitted commercial composting facilities is stable (Figure 1).

2. 24 private, 23 public, and five higher education commercial composting facilities reported

materials managed fiscal 2014-15 (Figure 1).

3. There is an available permitted capacity of 65 percent (able to process 1.2 million tons of

material) at existing composting facilities, enough to meet the assumed commercial

composting share of the EPA/USDA food waste reduction goal — 50 percent decrease by

2030 (refer to Figure 2 and Table 3 for details).

4. 5-year average tipping fee has remained stable at $26 per ton (Figure 3).

5. Limited data signals that composting operations create 3.7 jobs per 10,000 tons of material

composted per year.

Inputs / Feedstocks

6. Yard waste received is approximately half of the total materials received overall (Figure 4).

7. The supply of clean wood, as a non-yard waste high-carbon feedstock, has been increasing

since 2011 (Figure 5).

8. Biosolids have increased by 57 percent since 2010, or 11 percent per year (Figure 6).

9. Grease trap waste has increased by 43 percent since 2010, or 9 percent per year (Figure 6).

10. Animal waste has decreased by 12 percent since 2010, or 2.4 percent per year (Figure 6).

11. Food scraps have increased by 25 percent since 2012, or 8.7 percent per year (Figure 6).

12. Out of the total materials received, high carbon feedstocks consists of roughly 66 percent

and high nitrogen feedstocks roughly 32 percent (Figure 7).

13. Out of the 11 facilities that received the majority of the materials in fiscal 2014-15, four are

public Type 1 (woody waste) composting facilities and seven are private Type 3 and 4 (multi-

feedstock) composting facilities (Figure 8).

14. 54 percent of materials received at the 52 NCDEQ DWM permitted composting facilities

originated from Wake, Mecklenburg, Guilford, and Forsyth counties (Figure 8).

Outputs / Products

15. Composting facilities sold an average of 58 percent of the material created (Figure 9).

16. Stockpiling of finished product has decreased since 2012 (Figure 10).

17. Low percentage and steady trends are shown for finished products used on site (2 percent)

and given to the public (8 percent) (Figure 11).

18. Mulch and Grade A Compost are mostly sold to the public (Figures 12 and 13).

19. Overall production of Mulch and Grade A Compost have been relatively similar in the past

two fiscal years (Figure 14).


20. Mulch production has increased while Grade A Compost production has decreased during

the past five years (Figure 15).

Food Recovery

21. The North Carolina Association of Feeding America Food Banks consists of five major

non-profit organizations that rescued approximately 15,000 tons of wholesome food

through farmers, restaurants, catering companies and grocery stores.

22. Nine colleges are North Carolina chapters of the national Food Recovery Network and have

rescued 29 tons of wholesome food to date.

23. Only two counties (Orange and Wake) offer food scraps collection programs.

24. No local governments offer residential curbside collection of food scraps.

25. Six hauling companies are exclusively dedicated to food scraps collection (for composting

and/or animal feeding), and two waste companies offer food scraps collection services.

26. In 2015, 99,704 tons of food were diverted from the landfill through food rescue

organizations (15 percent), anaerobic digestion (18%), animal feeding (20 percent), and

commercial composting (47 percent) (Figure 16).

27. 15 permitted composting facilities accepted food scraps last year: eight of them accepted

more than 100 tons per year and composted 99% of total food scraps (one is no longer in

operation), and seven accepted less than 100 tons in 2015 (1% of total food scraps

composted) (Figures 17 and 18).

28. 14 public higher education institutions are collecting food scraps from sport venues, dining

facilities (pre- and/or post-consumer), and/or at special events.

29. Five higher education permitted composting facilities are actively composting food scraps:

Appalachian State University, Warren Wilson College, Davidson College, Penland School of

Crafts and Guilford College (Figure 18).

30. Each existing entity recovery and diverting food would have to expand their operations by

5.5 times to reach the federal food waste reduction goal.

FUTURE RESEARCH AREAS

Many questions remain that need to be addressed in order to expand organic waste recycling,

increase the services to reduce the production of excess food, and move any excess food to

plates, farms, soils and the electricity grid. Some future research areas include:

1. Quantify the current transportation capacity by the different food recovery strategies; 2. Identify the location and amount of excess food generated to improve collection routes; 3. Quantify the capital costs required to expand the various diversion efforts; 4. Evaluate higher-end markets for final compost products to make these services more

cost-competitive with landfilling or boiler fuel plants; and 5. Compare job creation between landfilling and private and public composting operations.


CONCLUSIONS

The N.C. Department of Environmental Quality annual composting facility reporting

requirement was essential to developing this study. Through the analysis of the data, it can be

seen that the composting industry in N. C. has shown healthy signs through the past five years,

including a stable amount of overall organic material received, a consistent number of facilities

spread throughout the state, available permitted capacity to handle more material, steady

product demand, and competitive tipping fees.

Within the available permitted capacity, the composting industry has the ability to compost

most of the excess food that is currently landfilled with only a few N.C. Department of

Environmental Quality permit and facility changes needed to allow existing composting

operations to process food scraps. Additional small food scraps composting operations are

needed in some area of the state to decrease the distance gap between existing composting

facilities and generators. The ability of composting facilities to handle excess food should not

overshadow the ability to expand existing food rescue, animal feeding, and anaerobic digestion

operations.

The biggest challenge remains the collection of organic waste material, specifically agricultural

food losses, excess prepared food, food scraps, and food manufacturing byproducts. The

distance between the generators of excess food and the users is a key factor in making the

economics of the system work. These distances can increase costs to the point of making the

aforementioned landfill alternatives cost-prohibitive. The creation of dense collection service

routes, often times anchored by a few large generators, is also critical to improving system

economics and reducing collection service costs to all generators. Many food waste generating

businesses are willing to evaluate savings on waste disposal and shift those funds towards

landfill alternatives, and sometimes even pay more for the services. The creation of these

business commitments are driven by customers and citizens and are shown through corporate

and institutional zero waste goals—crucial steps towards the advancement of organics recycling

in North Carolina.

Unlike other states with active food waste bans from landfills (such as California, Connecticut,

Vermont, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) or local governments with supportive food

diversion ordinances or programs (such as Austin, San Antonio, Madison, Los Angeles, New York

City, San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, Portland, Ann Arbor, and many others), North Carolina and

most of its local governments do not have a landfill ban or recycling mandates on food waste

food (Orange and Wake counties do provide some level of organics recycling support, through

voluntary participation). N. C. does have a supportive state government recycling program that

provides technical assistance and grant funding for the diversion of organic material (through

NCDEQ DEACS Recycling and Materials Management Section), as well as local government

recycling offices that offer technical advice or funding. It also has active networks of compost

professionals and a growing commitment to zero waste in its industrial sector.


The combination of public/private partnerships—support from state and local governments as

well as corporate commitments coupled with non-profit and private sector diversion services—

is critical to diverting organic materials from landfills, creating jobs, improving soil health,

reducing hunger, and meeting the EPA/USDA food waste reduction goal.

Date post:	17-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

NC ORGANICS RECYCLING STUDY: MATERIALS MANAGED 2011 … Assistance and... · 2018-06-19 · NC...

Documents